Terminator 2: VFX Ground Zero
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 05. 2024
- Get some cool drag & drop VFX here! ► www.famefocus.com/go/getvfx/ ◄
Don't forget to visit OUR SHOP here! ► fame-focus-vfx.creator-spring... ◄
Recently I've been hearing a lot of people say that they hate films that use "CGI" and that movies should go back to solely using practical effects.
They claim that modern movies rely too heavily on CGI and have lost the ingenuity and the magic that practical effects brought to their predecessors.
But wait!
Are Practical effects really as great as people claim?
And are digital effects really as bad?
And can you even tell the difference?
Like the music in this video? I made it!
Support me by getting it on any of these sites :P
Get it on iTunes: ► apple.co/2ENGfu9 ◄
Listen on Spotify: ► spoti.fi/3boTfCl ◄
Buy it on Amazon: ► amzn.to/2QVJZfk ◄
We decided to go back and take a look at the film that was responsible for pushing Digital effects into the limelight.
A film that forms part of almost every "Top 10 Movie List" that exists.
A film that had 6 Oscar nominations and won 4,
and that changed the way filmmakers approached, and composited visual effects.
As you've just seen (and despite what many of us may have believed to be true previously)
the T-1000s exploding bullet wounds were actually a practical effect.
Flowerlike shapes were made out of rubber latex material, backed with soft foam rubber or polyfoam, that was then "vacumetalized" to achieve the chrome look.
These spring-loaded flowering mechanisms were attached to a fiberglass chest plate worn by Robert Patrick under a prescored costume and were actuated by a single radio-controlled cable pin release. The pin’s release would open the petals, replacing that area of the costume with the chromed bullet splash.
However, the "healing process" of these wounds could not be achieved convincingly by using practical effects, and had to be done digitally.
so they cut away from the T-1000 with the practical effects and when they cut back, it was to T-1000 with digital bullet wounds. You can see the difference between the two more easily in the scene where T-800 and T-1000 first meet. Here, the practical flowers clearly protrude from his uniform. Whereas later on, in the digital version, the wounds are an integral part of his uniform and you can even see the uniform itself morph and warp along with the wounds as they heal. Watch this seam here, or his name tag here. Another scene that (on the face of it) looked like a totally digital effect but was in fact almost completely practical, was the Milk Carton scene.
The actress wore a prosthetic arm and her real arm was concealed underneath her shirt. The actor had a retractable blade mounted on the side of his head and the end of the prosthetic blade went through the milk carton and just slightly into his mouth. Here, you can see a practical test they did for the effect. As you can see, they had to physically hold on to the milk carton so the blade could be pulled out. But the shot was more convincing when the actor actually let go of it. To solve this they had someone hold the milk carton in place with a stick that was hidden just out of frame.
If we play the sequence back slowly, you can see that, as the actor's hand drops away from the carton, his body moves, causing the two different blades to move just enough that we can tell they are independent of one another and later on in the sequence, they give away that the arm is a prosthetic one when the movement causes her shirt to buckle right... here.
And of course, just as they did for healing the bullet wounds earlier, in this scene, in order for the blade to morph convincingly back into an arm and then for the T-1000 to morph back into its Policeman form they also had to use CGI. This amalgamation of practical and digital effects was apparent in all of T-1000s visual effects shots for the "Donut Head" effect, a practical animatronic puppet was built but for the healing shot, Digital effects were necessary. For the "Splash Head" effect they built a practical headpiece that was worn by Robert Patrick but once again, to achieve a convincing "healing" effect digital effects were necessary for the "Cleave Man" effect, Robert Patrick wore a prosthetic with a hand that could be puppeteered. And again the "healing" shot was CGI.
(...)
#terminator #terminator2 #terminatorjudgementday #arnoldschwarzenegger #vfx #vfxbreakdown #makingof #bts #behindthescenes #didyouknow #review #visualeffects #film #filmmaking #movie #moviescene #videooftheday #beforeandafter #cgi #practicaleffects #video
The above ActionVFX link contains a Special Fame Focus Discount. We also earn an affiliate percentage of each purchase.
Read more here: www.famefocus.com
Follow us on Twitter: / focusfame - Krátké a kreslené filmy
That scene where the T-1000 goes through the bars is brilliant and the fact that they achieved that in 1991 makes it even more amazing
This and jurasic park were the films that made the jump to CG visual effects, couldnt have been done as well without them.
and The Phantom Menace
CGI is so important when it's done right.
good CGI is good, bad CGI is bad, wise words
Yeah, the problem with current era of movies is that they use CGI for everything. Like, do you really need to do a green screen to film a normal non-action scene where 2 characters talk out on the street?
I could only imagine how many takes it took to get the actor to drop the milk carton and the blade to retrieve out of his mouth in time.
I take so long to create a short movie I assume this was a tough job.
t1000 is one of the most fearsome enemies to be on screen or imagined.
CGI isn't bad, it's how it's used today that's bad. CGI needs to be a condiment, not the whole freaking course.
To use CGI completely, as food stuff, you need to understand every aspect of it down to the very code that makes it tick. There isn't a single director alive that knows these things, hence why CGI doesn't look good and why it's even more jarring (not unnoticeable) than before.
In Terminator, the use of the CGI to sprinkle practical effects could be passed on as the reparation stage. Exactly how in Matrix, in the fight between Neo and the Smiths, the CGI could be passed on as the system (The Matrix) was unable to cope with the anomaly and thus the CGI effect (willing or not willing, the use of CGI there and in specific other scenes, does lead to that).
For a great comparison, compare how much CGI was used in LOTR trilogy to how much CGI was used in The Hobbit trilogy. Heck, listening to Ian talk about how lonely he was should show you exactly what people are talking about.
@@Ironica82 Exactly! So much of LOTR was done practical, and it looks amazing. Whereas a whole lot of the Hobbit shots looked bad even at the time, and it's because instead of building a forced-perspective set and capturing everything in-camera, every element was shot separately and composited together, or even created entirely out of CGI.
The best 90s VFX still hold up today because it was just augmenting practical things. Jurassic Park, The Fifth Element, The Matrix, T2, Apollo 13, etc. The only shots in Titanic that don't hold up are the big, sweeping, CGI shots of the ship; everything else was done with models and digital compositing/touch ups.
Obviously, CGI today is capable of being so much better than it was back then, but studio practices now demand that basically everything be CGI, so the producers have the option of changing things at every step of the process. Have you seen that breakdown of the VFX in one of the Avengers movies, about how they got all of these real people and CGI characters to interact? The trick is, basically nothing other than the heads of the actors were real. The marketing department didn't know what uniforms they wanted on the toys yet, so the actors were all wearing motion-capture suits, and their entire bodies were added in post. That's a bad use of CGI. We've had the technology to make clothes since well before we were making movies.
Very smartly done VFX that account for the limitations of the time. It helped that this might have been the peek of professionals that could do puppetry, animatronics, matte painting and all the practical FX that had been developed over nearly a hundred years of cinema.
Art Never Dies!!
The splash head puppet head wasn't worn by Robert Patrick, it was worn by his stunt double. The CGI and practical effects in T2 are legendary.
The T-1000 CGI work that Steve Spaz Williams, Mark Dippe and the rest of the ILM digital effects team produced was absolutely phenomenal, and it still stands up to this day. The fact it was done in 1990-91 is mind blowing. They were trailblazers and really paved the way for what was to come.
Another excuse to remind ourselves how good Terminator 2 is.
Buen video, esta pelicula será siempre una de mis favoritas
“Art Never Dies”
AI: “Hold My Bitbeer”
Wow another fantastic vid 😍
In Terminator 2 there is not one scene completely created by CGI... only some objects were digitalized. And that is the difference.
All scenes were build either in studios or in real life environment. That's why it is more believable.
I could be wrong, but the only full CGI shot in the movie is when the T1000's liquid metal face finally dissipates into the molten steel.
No you are correct.
Terminator 2 is basically the ultimate memory, that movies can in fact look breathtaking AND be damn good in all other ways. Unlike modern cinema.
I feel like people who talk about hating CGI and loving practical effects are comparing bad CGI to great practical. Even in shows and movies with massive budgets you can usually tell when something is a practical effect in the same way you can with CGI. Personally I find practical effects way more jaring than CGI.
I suspect it's because a lot of these "CGI BAD! PRACTICAL GOOD! ME DISCERNING FILM BUFF!" types have only seen a small handful of pre-CGI era movies, mostly just Star Wars. If they had a larger repertoire, they would have seen some comically fake-looking practical effects.
I think some things that are often overlooked is 1. the story should always come first and any effect is to support a story not the other way around (you see less screw up on a good story) and if you have to resort to looking at it frame by frame to find something wrong with it then you have way too much time on your hands
As long as a movie suspends your disbelief, you will forgive minor imperfections. As for the story, if this script had been given to Roger Corman none of us would remember it. In movie making, every team member adds to the final product. Not just the writer.
Yep. That's another problem with current era of movies. It feels like they make everything CGI and flashy just to make it flashy and amaze the viewers with visuals, not to support the story. Like modern Marvel "movies". It's just a farce with pretty pictures: an absolute failure as movies. The 1994 Fox Kids' cartoon series Spider-man has a much better story than Marvel movies made after like 2004(Spider-man 2 with Tobey Maguire). You can tell they were trying to make a good story and teach kids some morals, not to amaze kids with flashy animations.
A good blend of practical and digital is always impressive to see.
Cgi definitely has a place in film. It should be used to complement practical effects when they aren't, well, practical; which T2 is a prime example of. It's when cgi is the only source of any and all effects in a movie is when I feel it can really detract and ruin the experience.
Beautiful video!
Planning is everything when it comes to making movies, especially visual effects. That and they had £102 million dollars. Makes doing things practically a little easier. Don’t forget the helicopter stunt on the freeway chase sequence towards the end of the film, was done FOR REAL.
No CGI, no Miniature. Just a crazy Vietnam vet pilot and James Cameron himself filming it due to the camera crew refusing for being too risky.
this issue is not that "movies should stop using GCI and go back to practical effects", it's that movies should stop focusing on GCI and go back to storytelling.
Awesome!
Yes and the big difference is T2 (ILM) used both practical effects and cgi seemingly to achieve an action as opposed to doing everything in front of a green screen.
Well said people just complain about vfx because they have nothing else to do!!!
Ótimo vídeo
They need to go back to this
What people mean: Shooting everything in a volume, all backgrounds CGI, no practical sets, just green screen or volume.
It’s foolish to hate movies that use CGI and it’s the wrong reason to hate it. If a movie is planned and filmed accordingly for the use of CGI it will work wonders in your favour. This is why older movies looked better than some of todays. Todays its haphazardly thrown in a last minute attempt to fix something the filmmaker doesn’t understand and changed under such tight deadlines. VFX artists are actual wizards with prep time.
2:14 Either T2 is gorier than I remember or the pixelation caused me to imagine it to be gory.
It's not that gory, not sure why they felt they had to pixelate it.
@@farmersboy CZcams is finicky with gore of any kind. You can't be too paranoid about showing it these days, unfortunately.
I work in vfx. Can anybody tell me what hardware they were using for these shots? It still holds up today.
CGI and special effects is integral part of movies and I would argue has been since Méliès in the early 1900s; he did some cool special effects with plates for his short films. CGI has in part made some filmmakers lazy they think ohh people will be like "wow CGI" like in T2 but CGI can not replace the effort put into a good story, characters etc... I like what Spielberg said recently most people when they see a movie are like this scene,character, or music moved me not he was using this specific type of shot or lens. Filmmakers need to realize that the average movie goer has seen quite alot of CGI so they have to make it look good and or serve the story like Racconooni in Everything Everwhere All At Once. It is like a having a really good slice of well-baked cake, once you have had a good cake why go back to a bought cake mix you will always know the difference.
Wonder if you can find your green friends in the moon landing footage ?
Bro you are just like deadpool when you wear goggles 😎😎
Doesn't it come down to cost and efficiency in the very end? Making practical effects probably is much more expensive the larger you make them.
And if you go full CGI you can model and fix stuff that you would may have to re-shoot or entirely cut out otherwise.
Back ground music tittle please 😅
terminator movies are always been my fav of all time both for the story, the vusual effect and cgi. no matter if some of them is not like the 2, but i still enjoy watching them.
The problem with CGI is that no matter how good it is, it always looks layered onto the shot, whereas practical effects are actually in the shot.
The recent and upcoming Planet of the Apes films beg to differ. Digital effects with a huge budget never look layered on, but they do in cheap films.
didnt they used Video Toaster for Terminator ?
I think part of the problem is when they use CGI when practical will do. I personally hate CGI blood.
i will feel guilty if i don't give you a like. i knew more about my favorite movie at the pass now
What's with the blurring?
👍
Lol I always thought the T-1000 bullet wounds looked fake
🎉🎉
❤👍
So qu3m e fa de verdade vai curtir esse come
ntario
It’s not that CGI is bad, it’s that over reliance on it with poor planning & execution is. ie. when it’s a couple of weeks of loosely scripted acting, mostly to green screen, for a franchise movie outsourced to various unrelated CGI staff on $2 an hour, with daily ‘executive input’ from a director who doesn’t care about the fans, characters or lore.
1:27 couldn't they just shot in reverse ?
The smoke in the background would be going down instead of up.
Mr 🍏 pls do moon landing
How is that possible 😂
Thanks to CGI... Made filmmakers life easy
People just need to stop complaining and whining and enjoy the damn movie.
See Adipurush trailer you will know what is CGI 🤦😤
Hollywood can't compete with our Telugu movie CG's !
قوه
Look at movies today 90% is CGI nothing is real anymore. T2 barely used it and that is why that movie is still great
Just watch 2001 space odissey...
"Art never dies" - maybe try tell that to abused, overworked, underpayed CGI artists that (tried to do their) work on Marvel's panoply of unimaginative films.
Instead of being used sparigly as possible and for "an effect" (pun intended), it became incompetent producer(s)'/scriptwriter(s)'/screenplay writer(s)'/director(s)' panacea and "fix-all" for everything, and an excuse to not do their job properly.
Those movies are the definition of CGI over(ab)use.
Are you sick? The subtitles are so big, how many lines of sight are blocked.
Hello. You could just not watch this video.
You can change the size in your options
Бред полнейший